5.  The applicant was born in 1974 and prior to his arrest lived in Jalilabad.
6.  On 8 June 2008 an operation was planned for the applicant’s arrest following allegations made by two previously arrested persons to the Organised Crime Unit of the Ministry of Internal Affairs (Mütəşəkkil Cinayətkarlığa Qarşı Mübarizə İdarəsi, hereinafter “the OCU”) that he was a drug dealer and had sold them narcotic substances.
7.  At around 2.30 a.m. on 9 June 2008, when the applicant and an acquaintance of his were driving in the latter’s car in Baku, they were stopped and searched by the police. A packet of heroin was found on each of them. Some other narcotic substances were also found inside the car. The applicant and his acquaintance were arrested immediately after the search and taken to the department for narcotics-related crime of the Ministry of Internal Affairs. They were held there until 9 a.m. on 9 June 2008.
8.  At 9 a.m. on 9 June 2008 an investigator drew up a record of the applicant’s arrest as a suspect (tutma protokolu). The applicant was then taken to the temporary detention facility of the OCU.
9.  The following day, on 10 June 2008, the applicant was returned to the investigator for questioning. However, according to the record drawn up, the applicant refused to answer any questions in the absence of his lawyer.
10.  The applicant’s family appointed a lawyer for the applicant on 10 June 2008. The lawyer tried to organise a meeting with the investigator and the applicant and this was eventually scheduled for 11 June 2008.
11.  According to the applicant, during the night of 10 to 11 June 2008 he was ill-treated by four police officers in the temporary detention facility of the OCU.
12.  On 11 June 2008 the applicant was returned to the investigator for further interrogation in the latter’s office in the presence of his lawyer. According to the applicant, he was at that time limping and there were injuries to his feet which were swollen and bruised. It appears from the record of questioning of 11 June 2008 that the applicant stated that the previous night he had been ill-treated by four plain-clothes police officers in the temporary detention facility of the OCU with the aim of extracting a confession that he was a drug dealer. He had been beaten with a truncheon on the soles of his feet and the beating had lasted for about one hour. The applicant also alleged that he had been threatened with electric shocks if he did not confess. As to the identity of the perpetrators, he stated that he did not know them, but he would recognise them if he saw them again. The applicant and his lawyer asked the investigator to order a forensic examination of the applicant and his transfer to another detention facility. The record of questioning of 11 June 2008 was signed by the applicant, the lawyer and the investigator.
13.  It does not appear that the investigator took any immediate action upon the applicant’s allegations of ill-treatment. Following the applicant’s transfer, on 21 June 2008, from the temporary detention facility of the OCU to detention facility No. 1., on 12 July 2008 the investigator inquired about the applicant’s state of health upon arrival. By letter of 16 July 2008 the head of detention facility No. 1 informed the investigator that the applicant had been examined by a doctor on arrival at the detention facility and that no injury had been found.
14.  On 29 July 2008, during a further questioning, the applicant complained to the investigator that, despite his complaint of ill-treatment and his request for a forensic examination during the questioning of 11 June 2008, no investigation had been carried out in this connection. The record of questioning of 29 July 2008 was signed by the applicant, the lawyer and the investigator. It does not appear, however, that the investigator took any further action in respect of the applicant’s particular complaints concerning his alleged ill-treatment.
15.  On 14 August 2008 the applicant complained to the Deputy Prosecutor General, who was the supervising prosecutor in the applicant’s case. He submitted that, although two months had elapsed since 11 June 2008, the date on which he had informed the investigator about his ill-treatment, no investigation had been carried out in that respect. The applicant did not receive a reply to his complaint.
16.  On 11 June 2008 the applicant was formally charged with criminal offences under Articles 234.4.1 and 234.4.3 of the Criminal Code (illegal sale of large quantities of narcotic substances, committed by an organised group). On the same day the Narimanov District Court ordered the applicant’s remand in custody for a period of three months. At the hearing before the court, the applicant complained that he had been ill-treated by the police officers in the temporary detention facility of the OCU. However the court did not address that issue in its decision.
17.  It appears, however, from the case file that on 12 June 2008 the judge of the Narimanov District Court who had ordered the applicant’s remand in custody sent a letter to the head of the OCU asking for information about the applicant’s allegation of ill-treatment. It transpires from the case file that the judge did not receive a reply to his letter.
18.  On 12 June 2008 the applicant appealed against the first-instance court’s decision of 11 June 2008, maintaining, inter alia, his complaint of ill-treatment in the OCU’s temporary detention facility.
19.  On 20 June 2008 the Baku Court of Appeal upheld the order to remand the applicant in custody. The appellate court, however, made no mention of the applicant’s allegation of ill-treatment.
20.  On 11 June 2008 the applicant lodged a separate complaint with the Narimanov District Court about his alleged ill-treatment under the procedure established by Articles 449-451 of the Code of Criminal Procedure concerning appeals against the prosecuting authorities’ actions and decisions. He reiterated his complaints that on 10 June 2008 he had been beaten with a truncheon by four police officers in the temporary detention facility of the OCU and that he had been threatened with electric shocks if he did not confess. He asked the court to acknowledge the fact that he had been tortured.
21.  On 18 June 2008 the Narimanov District Court examined the complaint in the applicant’s absence, but in the presence of his lawyer. The court dismissed the allegation of torture, finding that the applicant had failed to substantiate his allegation. The relevant part of the decision reads as follows:
“At the court hearing, although the applicant’s lawyer V.H. argued that I. Hasanov [the applicant] had been subjected to torture, he failed to submit any evidence in this respect to the court.
At the court hearing the applicant’s lawyer V.H. merely submitted that I. Hasanov had been subjected to torture by four persons whom they did not know.
The fact that I. Hasanov had been tortured was not proved before the court. For this reason, the part of the complaint requesting the court to declare unlawful I. Hasanov’s torture should be dismissed.”
22.  On 20 June 2008 the applicant appealed against the first-instance court’s decision. He complained, in particular, that the first-instance court had failed to duly examine his complaint of ill-treatment, as the hearing had been held in his absence, that the perpetrators of the ill-treatment had not been questioned by the court and that the court had failed to conduct any investigation into his ill-treatment.
23.  On 3 July 2008 the Baku Court of Appeal dismissed the applicant’s appeal. The relevant part of the decision reads as follows:
“It appears from the case file that the accused and his lawyer did not complain to the investigator or to the Prosecutor General of the Republic of Azerbaijan about the ill-treatment of I. Hasanov.
For this reason, the lawyer’s complaint in this respect to the court was not examined and the court did not produce any document in this connection.
Therefore, the arguments of the appeal are unsubstantiated.”
24.  On 6 August 2008 the prosecutor filed an indictment with the Assize Court.
25.  On 10 November 2008 the Assize Court convicted the applicant on all counts and sentenced him to twelve years’ imprisonment.
26.  On 15 January 2009 the Baku Court of Appeal upheld the applicant’s conviction but reduced his sentence to nine years’ imprisonment.
27.  On 19 May 2009 the Supreme Court upheld the Baku Court of Appeal’s judgment.